Friday, April 20, 2012

In one of my comments on the previous posting I said that I might dissolve Dogen Sangha International but not just yet.

Well, I've thought about it some more and I've decided that now is the time to put the thing out of its misery. As of today April 20, 2012 at 7:00 PM Eastern Standard Time (USA), Dogen Sangha International is no more.

Any groups who wish to continue using the name Dogen Sangha may do so. Not that you need my permission anyway.
And that's that.

Phew!

I've wanted to do this for a very long time. There's really no reason to wait any longer.
I'm not retiring my position as a monk or discontinuing teaching Zen or anything like that. I'm simply ending Dogen Sangha International.

Michael's latest post on his homepage is particularly strange, especially the reference to "suicidal thoughts" and "rage" while sitting Zazen. My psychiatrist friend (I have not contacted him again about this) told me that such use of such destructive (self-destructive and other-destructive) violent words by Michael is not accidental.

Gudo Sensei, most of me never wants to speak to Michael again and to just "cut off" all contact. I find him disturbed and disturbing. However, as Buddhists, we need compassion even at the most personally difficult times and difficult persons. So, I recommend the following to you ...

(1) Michael be told that he can return to Dogen Sangha upon furnishing written proof of completion of 1 year of weekly therepy sessions with a psychiatrist or other mental health professional, plus proof of continued therapy thereafter if his doctor feels it necessary. Michael will then have to furnish a letter signed by his doctor that the doctor feels further psychological therapy is not necessary, or that Michael is properly continuing to receive treatment after that 1 year.

(2) Until that time, he needs to be cut off by us completely. His posting should be blocked on your Blog, the link to his Blog removed, and we have to use "tough love." That means that we have to have compassion not to encourage him by feeding his hungry ghosts (the term my friend used is "facilitate his illness."). If he gets help, then we welcome our Brother back. Until that time, he needs to take responsibility for himself.

I am cc'ing the other people on the DogenSangha list, but (after thinking about it) not Michael at this time. I will disclose the letter to Michael if that is the consensus of the group.

By the way, compare the following words of Michael to the test that doctors use for PPD: Gassho, Jundo

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association) describes Paranoid Personality Disorder as a pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

* suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her;

* is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates;

* is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her;

* persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults , injuries, or slights perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack;

* has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

Brad I noticed you deleted one of my comments on one of your recent blogs. I hope I didn't offend you or say anything to anger you cause that was not my intention at all. Just wanted to say sorry if I said anything that upset you dude...

Look, Michael, when you fixate on Nishijima or me ... that's why I initiated discussion in the Sangha about maybe you should talk to a counceler (and I spoke to a doctor friend of mine who said we should point you in that direction). I came to Dogen Sangha late, after already doing this Zen thing 20 years. So, it is like my adopted family. I'd never met such an angry Buddhist before. Your like a brother who has some demon inside him that has emerged in recent years, causing him to beat up on his father and siblings. Unfortunately, neither Zazen nor AT can slay all demons, and eventually even patient, old Nishijima had to ask you to leave US.

Anyway, I have said too much again. Please post this somewhere prominent as my response to all this. I just don't know what to do. I am sorry if any of my frustration and sarcasm has seeped out through the edges of my entrenched Buddhist equinimity.

"DSI" (modeled after CSI) would probably make a great ebook. Place it in Japan as a crime team. Just the lightest allegorical treatment to actual people and events would be all that is needed. It would be fantastic!

He then goes on to say, “But generally I don’t care about any of these people. Some of them are probably nice, well meaning guys. Others are clearly in it for the money. It’s like rock and roll or movies of any other form of mass entertainment. Most of what ends up being big is garbage calculated specifically to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Though on rare occasions something good breaks through. Spirituality in 21st century America is one more form of popular amusement.”

These quotes provide the perfect snapshot of my issue with Brad’s writing. First, note the most obvious inconsistancy. He doesn’t know who these people are or follow the “Buddhist scene in America,” but he constantly opines about said other teachers and the Buddhist scene in America. That to me doesn’t make a bit of sense.

I also note his self-assuredness. While the title of his piece “Why All Spiritual Teachers Other Than Me, Nishijima Roshi and Dogen SUCK ASS!!!!” is tongue-in-cheek, it also fairly accurately reflects Brad’s writings. He often does this, actually, where he’ll say one thing in jest to try and lessen the narrow-minded impact it has on the reader.

Brad writes later, “Maybe Reggie Ray isn’t like that. Maybe he really is great. I don’t know and I’m not all that interested in finding out. No disrespect to Mr. Ray intended. It’s just that I have a teacher. I don’t really feel any great need to find someone else or to sample all the flavors out there on the spiritual buffet table. I’m just not into that sort of thing.”

This is like Brad’s mantra. One needs only one teacher, and his is the only one he will listen to. Yikes! To my eyes, at any rate, isn’t this attitutde dismissive and narrow-minded? Just because you have a teacher doesn’t mean you shut your eyes and ears off to anything else. That’s just weird to me. What Brad calls a spiritual buffet is what most of us call being open and not knowing everything.

I’m just wary of anyone who sets themselves up as the guy who is authentic – the real Buddha dope. I think people should seek out all kinds teachers in life. To decide you’ve settled that matter, case-closed, strikes me as stagnant, arrogant and childish. Anyway, not sure why I felt like putting my foot in this but there it is.

I feel that there has been a long history of sect bashing, discriminatory actions, impositions of punishment, disparagement and the like, by the non-Zen Buddhist administrators (mostly Tibetan Buddhist practitioners and various priests from conservative traditions) directed specifically at Zen Buddhist practitioners and clergy ... especially those expressing what the administrators see as Buddhist teachings conflicting with their own views of Buddhism (for example, the administrators would regularly pop into the "Soto Zen" forum, delete postings explaining Soto Zen doctrine by various Soto Zen clergy, substitute their own interpretations of Buddhist doctrine as "correct" in place of views that were not "the Buddha's teachings" as they see them ... and ban or censor anyone protesting).

The situation became so bad that it was felt some action should be taken. All attempts at reasonable discussion failed, emails were not answered, any suggestions to fix the problems were not even responded to.

I am now a retired lawyer. I am a Buddhist priest. Truly, I do not believe in most any kind of dispute, and I believe that very little in life is worth fighting about … but when it comes to matters of free speech, racial or religious discrimination, sect defamation and the like, well, that is a different story and goes right to the heart of what is still worth defending in our society … even by Buddhists.

So, to make a long story short, Singapore, the home base of E-Sangha and of its owners, happens to have some of the world's most aggressive legal protections against religious intolerance. For example, they possess a licensing authority for the internet, not unlike the FCC for broadcast stations in America, and E-Sangha's actions can be challenged there as an act "causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups and sects." We decided to file a petition there and with certain other civil authorities in Singapore as our one available, effective avenue of protest. There will also be a civil claim filed to accompany this.

And that is why the administrators of E-Sangha, instead of talking with us about these issues, took their usual stance ... they simply shut down the "Soto Zen" forum altogether in an attempt to fully silence all discussion.

I'm not even going to comment the sheer amount of things that disqualify you as a Buddhist, in my personal opinion, let alone as a Buddhist teacher. But that's my take, and you surely disagree.In my opinion, you are that kind of guy who makes a living as lifeguard, all geared up and everything, in spite of not having the slightest idea about how to swim. Result? When you enter the water to save someone, both drown.Just notice, as a friendly reminder, that this isn't ZFI. The sort of "teachings" you pass as Buddhadharma over there won't be allowed here unless in the Dharma-free-for-all subforum, opened to debate under its rules.

To all,

A fantastic meal with a drop of poison will kills you guys, not mattering how yummy it seems. Keep that in mind.Poison in disguise is still poison. Some of Jundo's teachings and opinions are very controversial, even if very eloquent and well presented in this day and age. They are seen by many as gross corruptions of the Buddhist teachings. So, caveat emptor."

i was thinking about it all day long, thinking that this is such a waste of an oppertunity. the idea was close to me because i don't believe in culture (just that people do what they have to do in order to meet the same needs)...but that difference is moderately significant...i guess... actually a dogen sangha international, with a code of conduct and rules and whatnot would stagnant 'zen'(may be even buddhism if it got popular enough). because it wouldn't be allowed to grow in the different 'cultures', to be expressed in the many myraid ways.

my apologies...may be you actually did dogen a favour. let everyone practise dogen's teaching's their own way...actually, we are doing that with shakymuni's 'buddhism'.

Interesting (long) piece on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness from our old buddy Trungpa:

... even to apply bare attention to what we are doing is impossible. If we try, we have two personalities: one personality is the bare attention; the other personality is doing things. Real bare attention is being there all at once. We do not apply bare attention to what we are doing; we are not mindful of what we are doing. That is impossible. Mindfulness is the act as well as the experience, happening at the same time. Obviously, we could have a somewhat dualistic attitude at the beginning, before we get into real mindfulness, that we are willing to be mindful, willing to surrender, willing to discipline ourselves. But then we do the thing; we just do it. It is like the famous Zen saying "When I eat, I eat; when I sleep, I sleep." You just do it, with absolutely no implication behind what you are doing, not even of mindfulness.

Respect, Brad! I truly believe that people will now find more Nishijima's and Dogen's teachings instead of some bizarre McDogenSangha brand. That's why I changed 2010 (or was it 2011?) my Zen group's name Dogen Sangha Finland into Kajo Zendo because so many seemed to think we're following some strange McDS brand. Hell no.

Long live Dogen's and Nishijima's teachings! I believe this is a good day for us all and especially for Dogen's and Nishijima's precious heritage.

What's with all the fascination with Dogen? I think you should broaden your horizons a little bit now that you've dissolved your organization. The assertion that one zen master was the awesomest zen master and that's all we're going to study is not going to fly in America. At some point you have to start speaking from your own realization and stop referencing Dogen and Gudo like a mindless puppet. I don't care what Dogen said or Gudo said, tell me how it is right now for you at this very moment. That's really all there is to Buddhism. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something, like audio books and magazine subscriptions.

Anonymous Anonymous said..."What's with all the fascination with Dogen?"

To Dogen is attributed the founding of Soto Zen - the largest (most popular) form of Zen Buddhism in Japan, the form adopted by the beatnicks in America in the 1950s, and the form popularized by Alan Watts (the Anglican Alcoholic).

Therefore newbie Zen-lite wanna-bees gravitate toward the recordings of Alan Watts or the limited writings of Dogen - assuming that they are in the habit of reading anything. They also avoid the embarrassment of Koan Study.

One must understand that there are approximately 200 popular forms of Buddhism extant in the same way that there are 200+ popular forms of Christianity in today's religious marketplace - including Sarah Palin's Pentecostal Tong-lashers.

The cult of Dogen is somewhat centered on Shobogenzo. Like punk, it's a way to be kewl.

And by contrast, you are? Don't try and make this all about how long you've been sitting. Tell me about your deeper understanding and knowledge that allows you to look down on others like you frequently do.

The assertion that one zen master was the awesomest zen master and that's all we're going to study is not going to fly in America.

I understand the appeal of changing Buddhism so that it's more acceptable to Americans. But if you give people what they want, what you wind up with is McDonalds. Which may be popular, but neither good, nor healthy.

i'm sure brad will lose sleep over all the haters. seems so Buddhist to go and belittle someone on the internet. who i happen to think is trying to introduce a whole group of disenfranchised youth the world of Buddhism(I'm sure that was your whole goal too - the whole punk rock band wagon youth market; smart move) A lot of people in history seem to squabble over teachings and teachers and scholars... but some people will just see the flower and it doesn't matter how you get there when you have the will to seek the truth honestly. as i like to say "we all live the same story, we just narrate it differently" - been saying that as long as i can remember, hopefully brads narration of his truth and way will be close enough to lead a lot more Americans to shut up and sit down (see what i did there?) and figure it out for themselves, Buddha is so happy that all these people are here to keep his law im sure!

Do you guys realize how hilarious a picture this thread and comments give about the whole buddhist zazen thingy? You are supposedly folks who promote "just sitting" and doing your own thing and being compassionate with each other and shit. That sounds awesome. Every time when I try to get in contact with some other people doing this stuff, I run into people telling other people they are DOING IT WRONG and throwing accusations, recommending therapy, and sueing each other.

Gods. I'll just be doing my own thing over in that corner. I have a wall to stare at home.

I wish someone would dissolve a few more Religious Institutions. You would think they would go away by themselves. I actually read that there may be something in the human DNA that predisposes up to some sort of "Higher Power" belief in our psyche. Maybe it's all a lost cause ehhh?CheersDale

As I mentioned, I went back to grad school (having previously attended in 1971) in 1989 as a hobby while my wife earned her BA. She majored in English while I rejoined Jungian Psychology. We graduated on the same June day in 1993 - her with her BA and me with the M.S. She went on to fetch a Master's in English (all without student loans).

Carl Jung was cool. He, and his immediate followers, explored religions, philosophies, and institutionalized belief systems. The myriad myths of man (e.g. religions) have been on the academic radar for 140+ years but it was Carl Young that brought the discipline into focus and to full fruition.

“As a student of comparative religions, I believe that Buddhism is the most perfect one the world has ever seen. The philosophy of the Buddha, the theory of evolution and the law of Karma were far superior to any other creed.” - Professor Carl Gustav Jung

Thanks for Fu Xi & Nu Wa, Mysterion- beautiful depiction of above as below, below as above, leaving the great mystery that has curtailed the progress of civilization behind the skirt. Egyptian art showed the knot, and the role of the goddesses behind the skirt, but lacks the differentiation of the forces making up the akh. The compass and the square with plumb, rotation and activity on the diagonals generated by the weight of the body.

Dogen at the sound of a mountain stream, Dogen at the sight of blossoms. Where'd he go!

That is so arrogant. Who made you king of correctness? It's none of your fucking business if people want to eat that shit. I don't but IT'S MY CHOICE! We don't need your inpute on every fucking thing!

Sorry you didn't like my choice of metaphor, but if I call an organization "fast food Zen", I don't think anyone will be think I am praising a them for being fast, clean, and efficient. If using this metaphor makes me arrogant, well, I saw it used elsewhere twice tonight, so I've got plenty of company.

On the larger issue, the goal of Buddhism and Zen in particular is liberation from the false concept of ego. Unfortunately, what we're seeing more and more of is "dharma lite", using meditation to make you comfortable with your ego. If you want to use meditation to de-stress and feel more peaceful, you're welcome to try, but that sort of practice can only take you so far.

That is why we recognize perfection where and when it exists. Everything else is just performance art.

Nothing, IMO, sums it up better than

Prospero:Our revels now are ended. These our actors,As I foretold you, were all spirits, andAre melted into air, into thin air:And like the baseless fabric of this vision,The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,The solemn temples, the great globe itself,Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuffAs dreams are made on; and our little lifeIs rounded with a sleep.

Jinzang wrote: On the larger issue, the goal of Buddhism and Zen in particular is liberation from the false concept of ego...

Do you mean that the goal of Buddhism is to arrive at the opinion that that the concept "ego" is a false concept? Or do you mean the goal is liberation from having a sense of self? Something else? Perhaps liberation from greed, hatred, delusion? I'm never sure what people mean when they say things like "...liberation from ego."

If you want to use meditation to de-stress and feel more peaceful, you're welcome to try, but that sort of practice can only take you so far.

I always thought the goal of Buddhism was to lessen dukkha. "Stress" is a pretty good translation of dukkha.

...For example, Buddhist teaching sees the self as comprising of the five skandhas, including our physical form.

'The ego' by comparison, in Western thought and assumption, is often held to be just some sort of psychological entity or sense of 'self', 'me', 'I' or some sort of self referential mental structure... and the term is often used negatively speaking in terms of Buddhism or self help or just in common speech.

At any rate, the zen/mahayana goal is not confined to either a personal psychological realisation or any other form of personal redemption.

Is that what you mean by "the false concept of ego," Jinz? Ego = Atman? I understand atman/self to refer to some kind of permanent, enduring essence; a soul or spirit. And yes, the Buddha suggests there isn't such a thing - not in things or people. And he might be right. I'm not wanting to split hairs, but, like Harry, I don't think that's quite the same thing as "ego". Still...

If that is what you're getting at, then you seem to me to be saying (in my words) "the goal of Buddhism is to arrive at the opinion that that the concept "ego" is a false concept." That would be an opinion, a philosophical view. Fair enough. Buddhism 101, perhaps. But hardly "the goal of Buddhism".

But if you're saying that "liberation from ego" is more than adopting a view, but is something that can be made real for a person, then that sounds like my second option (above): "liberation from having a sense of self," ie having no sense of self-hood/identity. I think such a state stands little chance of being realised by anybody for more than a few moments...however badly someone might value and want such a state and however much time and energy they might devote to achieving it.

(Less dukkha necessarily involves less dukkha for both self and others, of course.)

So would you consider being head of the Sing-a Sangha? As an organization, we love to sing-a about the moon-a and the June-a and the spring-a. We love to sing-a about a sky-a of-a blue-a and a tea-a for-a two-a. We love-a to, we love-a to sing!

BTW, I think the Old Barbarian himself pulled a masterstroke in regards to the Buddhist preoccupation with mental wrangling, 'ego', 'self' and all such notions that we get hung up on from time to time:

Huike said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.”

Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.”

Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.”

“There,” Bodhidharma replied, “I have pacified your mind.”

... now it was probably some poor chinese chap came up with that chestnut long after the fact, but you know what I mean.

"Do you mean that the goal of Buddhism is to arrive at the opinion that that the concept "ego" is a false concept? Or do you mean the goal is liberation from having a sense of self? Something else? Perhaps liberation from greed, hatred, delusion? I'm never sure what people mean when they say things like "...liberation from ego."

The false sense of self that isyapping away on this board.

Did the Buddha stop yapping whenhe realized that which existsbeyond yapping? Who knows.

Why were Buddha, Jesus and Mohamedmen? Because it's bullshit. The Unnown can be grasped by anyone.Organized religion is a crock ofshit.

To train and enlighten all things from the self: is delusion; to train and enlighten- the self from all things is enlightenment. Those who enlighten their delusion are Buddhas; those deluded in enlightenment are all-beings. Again there are those who are enlightened: on enlightenment-and those deluded within delusion. When Buddhas are really Buddhas, we need not know our identity with the Buddhas. But we are enlightened Buddhas-and express the Buddha in daily life. When we see objects and hear voices with all our body and mind-and grasp them intimately-it is not a phenomenon like a mirror reflecting form or like a moon reflected on water. When we understand one side, the other side remains in darkness. To study Buddhism is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things.

This fiction of ego can not gainwhat it wants.It should just wantthat which is here in this moment.There is no suffering because thereis nothing to suffer. A maggot ismeant to crawl through rotting flesh.Form is transmuted and morphed intodifferent form. This concept of aself ego is like a red hot poker inheld in my hands.

If Buddhism had a goal it would beto see through and transcend thissense of self ego.

One problem with not having any organisation (and/or standard) at all is that the spurious might flourish without any sort of check. And, as much as I like to believe it's not true and afford people complete autonomy and dignity, people (me very much included!) do tend to disappear up their own asses from time to time. Even at that, and acknowledging that people really do need to keep an eye out for each other, I'm not sure that a big lumbering institution is ever an appropriate response.

Still, sometimes I wonder which is the worst evil... and I'm sure there's a clever 'middle way' there somewhere.

Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama Shakyamuni) may not have been the first psychologist but he was certainly the first noteworthy psychologist.

"Along with this basic analysis of the human predicament as one of suffering, the Buddha gained acute understanding of human psychology and physiology which formed the basis for later philosophical developments of Buddhism as well as the foundation for many advanced meditative practices. Essential to this teaching was the principle of 'no-soul' (atman) or no essence to what we consider the 'self.' " source

“Try imagining yourself standing in an empty room. You look around and see only empty space - everywhere. Absolutely nothing occupies that space - except you, standing in the middle of the room. Admiring its emptiness, you forget about yourself. You forget that you occupy a central position in that space. How then can the room be empty? As long as someone remains in the room, it is not truly empty.

When you finally realize that the room can never be truly empty until you depart, that is the moment when that fundamental delusion about your true self disintegrates, and the pure, delusion-free mind arises. “Once the mind has let go of phenomena of every sort, the mind appears supremely empty; but the one who admires the emptiness, who is awestruck by the emptiness, that one still survives.

The self as reference point, which is the essence of all false knowing, remains integrated into the mind’s knowing essence. This self-perspective is the primary delusion. Its presence represents the difference between the subtle emptiness of the radiant mind and the transcendent emptiness of the pure mind, free of all forms of delusion.

Self is the real impediment. As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain. Transcendent emptiness appears. As in the case of a person in an empty room, we can say that the mind is truly empty only when the self leaves for good. This transcendent emptiness is a total and permanent disengagement that requires no further effort to maintain.

Delusion is an intrinsically blind awareness, masquerading as radiance, clarity and happiness. As such, it is the self ’s ultimate safe haven. But those treasured qualities are all products of subtle causes and conditions. True emptiness occurs only when every single trace of one’s conditioned realitydisappears.

As soon as you turn around and know it for what it is, that false awareness simply disintegrates. Clouding your vision with its splendor, that luminous deception has all along been concealing the mind’s true, natural wonder.

There is no goal to Buddhism. Once you've established a goal you have already fallen into the delusion of dualistic thinking. There is nothing you lack and there is nothing for you to change. Change always happens without you having to push things around. A goal driven mind is a mind that will never be quiet or satisfied. Chatter on then, goaltenders.

Well, Mysti, that points to a big distinction to be made right there I think. Freud's theories have had such an affect on how we consider 'the mind' and 'the self' etc that it bears some clarification around terms i think.

Freud originally saw the ego as operating to a reality principle in that it sort of negotiated to satisfy the unreasoned, unconscious arising selfish id drives while avoiding the lofty, guilt inducing morality of the superego (that's my cartoon version of the theory!)... which is quite in contrast to how we perceive the 'ego' to be when we croak on about it in relation to Buddhism and in popular usage (I'm of the opinion that the term is of very little use in Buddhism, if of any use at all, because nobody seems particularly clear what they mean when they say it).

Even to Freud it was just a term to describe a function of the mind, not some sort of mental organ or entity.

'Ego' from the Latin and Greek before it just means 'I', but it seems to have taken on the baggage of the Western idealist tradition and become associated with a percieved mental/ psychological 'I' or notion of what constitutes a 'self'.

If Buddhism had a goal it would be to see through and transcend this sense of self ego.

I look forward to one day hearing from someone who has "seen through and transcended this sense of self ego"...whatever that may mean. On the evidence available so far, I'm not impressed.

And Ajahn Maha Boowa says:

Self is the real impediment. As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain...This transcendent emptiness is a total and permanent disengagement that requires no further effort to maintain.

Yes, I am using ego as a synonym for the self. I know that's not what it means in Freudian psychology, but it's the common sense of the term. I use it because it suggests egotism, and egotism is a result of the sense of self. From the sense of "me" comes "mine" and from that comes all of our attachments. To give an example. if you hear a crash a look out the window and see one car has hit another, you don't get upset. But if it's YOUR car that got hit, you do. The difference between the two cases is egotism.

To bring it back to actual practice. If I ask you to meditate by looking at your thoughts, in your mind there will be a sense of something that is watched and also a watcher. The watcher is ego, or the sense of self. If you meditate for long enough, to the point where there are significant gaps between your thoughts, sooner or later that sense of a watcher will fall away. You will see it for what it is, a mental fiction. That's what I'm referring to as enlightenment, though it's only one step in a very long process.

Welcome, today on the Hardcore Catholic Forum, we thank (somebody) for The Pixies, and we thank somebody else for news about alien abductions.

Getting to the word of the day:

"Whatever... is material shape, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as 'This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self', sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling... perception... the habitual tendencies... whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present... (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as 'This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self', sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer' in regard to this consciousness-informed body." (MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society volume 3 pg 68)

As to what is meant by "no latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer' in regard to this consciousness-informed body":

"One sage clarified True Mind (Reality) when he saw peach blossoms and another realized the Way when he heard the sound of tile hitting a bamboo. They attained the way through their bodies."

In plain English: if I grasp at the feeling I have, I am no longer waking up and falling asleep, and my ability to feel changes. If what I feel informs the place of occurrence of consciousness, then the ability to feel is my necessity of breath and posture, and I find myself waking up or falling asleep in the midst of my activity.

perfect wisdom, mind that takes place out of the necessity of breath and posture, the place of mind that moves dispelling any latent conceits that "I am the doer, mine is the doer" with regard to the consciousness-informed body" (the body of referred sensation?).

"I look forward to one day hearing from someone who has "seen through and transcended this sense of self ego"...whatever that may mean. On the evidence available so far, I'm not impressed."

I tend to concur on that one Mysti,

With all the prattle about Buddhism being about dissolving or transcending the 'ego', and our very normal and real human desires, one might mistake Buddhism for an inhumanly sqeaky clean philosophy of battering ourselves into a state of nothingness. This has happened in zen too of course (I recall the recentish article by the zen teacher who required therapy after being encouraged by his master to 'destroy his ego', or words to that effect).

If someone can't aknowledge that they are at least a bit pissed off about their car being trashed then I'm inclined to think that's it's more to do with a sort of denial, or a type of psychosis, than enlightenment.

Zen is good on this subject too though (in countering a sort of emotionally/intellectually aloof transcendism), and Gudo always pointed that we require a certain amount of desire in order to exist as we do.

"I look forward to one day hearing from someone who has "seen through and transcended this sense of self ego"...whatever that may mean. On the evidence available so far, I'm not impressed."

And then wrote this:

I tend to concur on that one Mysti..."

Maybe you want draw Mysti's attention to that excellent point, H. Or maybe you're confused. What you wrote certainly might confuse others. I wrote it, not him. ME! It's MY work and all the credit accruing from any concurring belongs to ME. OK?

"I look forward to one day hearing from someone who has "seen through and transcended this sense of self ego"...whatever that may mean. On the evidence available so far, I'm not impressed."

If it is worth anything, those who I think have been on the best track have been those who have stated that there is no "ego" to be "transcended." Transcending would kind of lose its meaning and not make very much sense. Those that have stated as much have tended to be also Zen Buddhist masters.

I can understand the empirical method like the given quote, as I share it, however I just wanted to quickly correct this interpretation. Some Buddhists or those that have claimed Buddhism for themselves have said there is something to "realize" to "transcend." That is only as true as it is not true, and some very precious select Buddhists have also said as much. There are diamonds in the rough. ^.^